This page added on Friday, 10th July 2009
Those were the years when electronics was starting to become an affordable
and easily-accessible hobby. The age of the transistor had well and truly
arrived, and components were becoming small and cheap. Intriguing,
high-quality electronics magazines began to proliferate. By the 1970's,
electronics as a serious hobby was well-established; and I was an
enthusiastic participant.
By the early 1980's, it had plateaued somewhat, because pretty much all the
clever things you could do had already been done: circuits for things like
vocoders,
ring modulators,
and just about every imaginable guitar special-effect had been published,
along with
colour organs,
light chasers,
and various other more-or-less useful things - even the occasional Tesla
coil circuit (for example,
this one,
which appeared in the Popular Electronics publication "1990 ELECTRONIC
HOBBYISTS Handbook", a copy of which I own). The magazines began to repeat
themselves: circuits for new projects began to look suspiciously like things
that had been published many times before. Clearly, it was getting harder to
be truly original.
(WARNING:
please don't build and operate that Tesla coil project unless you
know exactly what you're about. In that circuit, the primary and secondary
coils share a common "earth" - which means that you could get a very
nasty shock from it if you're not extremely careful! Note the
disclaimer at the end of the article; I apply a similar disclaimer to any
high-voltage device I describe, or allude to in any way, within this
website - including the one just mentioned. Basically: "Don't blame me if
you get into strife - you have been warned!")
Around that time, small, affordable computers began to appear. Computing as
a hobby began to take over from electronics, and as electronics magazines
began to dwindle, computer mags began to fill the vacuum. At first, I
resented the change; but eventually I embraced it, and by the mid-80's I'd
bought my Commodore 64 and was happily putting it to work producing
Mandelbrot Set graphics, experimenting with its built-in three-voice
synthesizer, and even learning the rudiments of machine code. Lots of fun!
Then, by the early 1990's, even that began to pall, and eventually "fizzled
out" - much as the exciting world of electronics experimentation had done a
decade or so earlier. Just as
video killed the radio star,
Windows killed the programming star! No longer did you write
programs to fill your needs - you bought
application software, and hoped it would do basically what you
wanted it to without interfering with any other previously-installed
software, or fouling up your machine in any other conceivable
way...
And then - the internet arrived.
In early 1998, I bought my first internet-capable computer - the Windows 95
machine on which I eventually began to compose this website.
It was probably a couple of years later that I began to think back to my
boyhood, and reminisce over the simple, old-fashioned projects that my Dad
and I used to build. I remembered books that I'd found in the school
library, with instructions for making things like Wimshurst machines and
Tesla coils. At some point, on a whim (pun not intended!), I started
digging around on the web to see if anybody else was thinking along similar
lines.
Hoo boy - did I get a surprise! I found that there was absolutely
tons of stuff out there. In particular, there were dozens - perhaps
hundreds - of websites dedicated to Tesla coils, and vast amounts of
information about their strange, passionate inventor, Nikola Tesla himself.
I was immediately fascinated. I read voraciously whatever I could find about
the physics of that bygone era, and the characters who made it all happen -
Faraday, Henry, Maxwell, and of course dear old Tesla himself, among others.
I determined that I would get involved with all this lovely stuff again, and
perhaps eventually make my own contribution to the lore via the internet -
which, of course, I have now done, and am joyously continuing to do!
>>> FULL CIRCLE <<<
Along the way, while hunting for information about "old-fashioned"
electrical phenomena, I also found quite a lot of other intriguing stuff,
which - on the face of it - appeared to be related in some way to my main
quest. In particular, the name of Tesla kept appearing in unexpected ways.
I've made earlier references within this website to a strange book from
around 1980 called "The Cosmic Cospiracy", by Stan Deyo (you might like to
click
here
to read a bit about it and see a scan of its front cover - just scroll down
a bit from the top of the page).
It is, by any standards, an odd book. It's divided into four sections:
"Flights of Reason", "Mysticism and Numerology", "Not of Earth", and "The
Seven Appendices".
Ho ho ==>
If you're keen enough, you can click
here
to read some extracts from these parts of Deyo's book! (Especially, have
a good look at Appendix 6.) Go on - I dare you! Live dangerously...
Now, I'm not getting into any kind of debate about the details of Deyo's
thoughts in this area. (It did fascinate me when I was in my late twenties,
and I still think it's probably worth looking into more deeply at some
stage.) The main point I want to make here is that there are references to
Nikola Tesla in the text.
When I first started hunting on the web for information about Tesla, I found
several sites which link Tesla to various people's thoughts about electric
flying vehicles. For example, have a look at
this page
- which contains the following very telling paragraph - a quote from Tesla
about the way science was headed even in his day:
Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and
they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a
mathematical structure which has no relation to reality.
Then, try typing
"flying saucer" Tesla
into Google, and see what turns up!
Perhaps the most interesting web-page about electric flying machines is that
by Jean-Louis Naudin, a French experimenter who claims to have made working
models. He also encourages visitors to his site to make their own working
models and report their results to him for inclusion in his site. There are
lots of eye-catching photos and videos on that site.
Have I piqued your interest? Click
here
to visit Jean-Louis's "lifter" page, and see for yourself! Also, click
here
to visit his home page, and see what else he's into - a very interesting
character, I think you'll agree. (I'll probably be having more to say about
Monsieur Naudin and his work fairly soon.)
I don't have a working lifter - yet. I do have a partially-constructed
high-voltage DC generator, built around the flyback transformer from a
defunct computer monitor, which may well power such a thing - and, of
course, I'd like to think that I might become the first person from Tasmania
to get a mention on Naudin's site for having built a successful lifter. But
that project is on hold for the moment, because I've decided to concentrate
on the obviously far more pressing problem of clean, cheap, sustainable,
practical energy for everyday needs - especially now that climate change is
becoming such a desperately important issue.
As I continued to trawl the net for information about these most interesting
matters, I began to find web-pages which referred to "free energy". This
caused me to have raised eyebrows, because my scientific education had -
quite rightly - led me to be wary of such things as
perpetual motion machines,
and violations of the
Second Law of Thermodynamics
and the
Law of Conservation of Energy.
I was well aware of the TANSTAAFL principle ("There Ain't No Such Thing As A
Free Lunch").
I could have adopted the true sceptic's approach, dismissing such web-pages
simply as "rubbish" or "nonsense" and immediately flicking away from them;
but I thought that it couldn't do any harm to at least check these things
out. Many of those pages' authors seemed to be at least sincere, even
if they were perhaps misguided.
Other terms were used in some of these pages. Many of them referred to the
work of Nikola Tesla, and mentioned the fact that Tesla had used the term
"radiant energy". Then again, the expression "zero-point energy" occurred
frequently.
I began to realize that these authors were not talking about the
creation of energy (which would be a direct violation of the
Conservation Law). Nor were they suggesting that the law of entropy (i.e.
the Second Law of Thermodynamics) can be violated. Rather, the clear message
was that there is a vast reservoir of energy throughout the universe, just
"below the surface", as it were - and that we would do well to be directing
our efforts toward finding efficient ways to access it, especially in
these disturbing times when it seems that our world may be on the brink of
environmental disaster, largely as a result of humanity's rapidly
increasing use of polluting, unsustainable energy sources.
It became clear to me that "zero-point energy" and Tesla's "radiant energy"
were one and the same thing. Further, I learned that the existence of
zero-point energy is accepted - rather grudgingly, it seems - by
"mainstream" or "establishment" science. Often referred to as ZPE, it's the
energy which cannot be extracted from a system by cooling, even down to
absolute zero (about -273 degrees Celsius) - hence the name. (The official
line is that ZPE is a phenomenon of
quantum mechanics
- a subject which I'd like to address at some stage. The reason that
scientists have somewhat of a problem with it is that it provides an
opportunity for enthusiasts of what they view as "fringe" or "crackpot"
science to push their barrow, fly their kite, stir their pot, or beat their
drum - whichever metaphor you like least.
Eventually, when I began to create
this website about four years ago, I was determined to include what I'd
learned about ZPE within the site. Because of the obvious Tesla connection,
I spared no effort to get my site (complete with a page about ZPE) ready for
launch by the 150th anniversary of Tesla's birth, 10th July 2006 - and, with
a struggle, I succeeded, with five days to spare.
Before proceeding - some comments about the term "free energy".
It's not a term I particularly like. I'm not comfortable with it, for a
number of reasons:
Firstly, to my way of thinking it sounds too "trendy" and "hip". I can
understand "mainstream" science having a severe problem with it; it sounds
exactly like the sort of thing sceptics would just love to get their pointy
teeth into - so why encourage them, especially if there is an alternative
term which the scientific world will accept, if only with bad grace?
Secondly, what could the term really mean? Again to my way of thinking,
there is one sense in which all energy is free, and there is another
sense in which no energy is free.
Allow me to elaborate:
Accepting that energy can be neither created nor destroyed, we can say that
such energy as there is in the universe has always been here, and is
here to stay. It may change from one form to another, and at different times
and places it may be easier to "get at" than at others - but if it's
accessible at all, it's there for the taking. It's "free", in the sense that
it is simply there for the taking - we don't have to "manufacture"
it!
Consider:
Fossil fuels such as coal and oil are simply "there", and have been for a
long time. All we have to do is dig them up (or pump them up, if they're in
liquid form), and we have a source of energy (as chemical energy, in these
cases).
Nuclear or "atomic" energy is also simply "there", in the sense that the
nuclei of certain isotopes of certain elements are fissile - i.e.
they can break apart into fragments, including the lighter nuclei of other
elements and other, smaller particles which can trigger other fissile
nuclei to split in the same way. The classic example is uranium-235, one
atom of which can split into an atom of barium, an atom of krypton, and
three neutrons, with the release of a considerable amount of heat. Those
neutrons can trigger other U-235 atoms to behave similarly, and you have a
"chain reaction".
Solar energy - the energy of the sun - is not really anything new. The sun's
heat causes evaporation from oceans, rivers and lakes; then some of that
vapour condenses into rain which lands at a higher level and can be used to
run hydro-electric power stations, for example. All we have to do is allow
it to run down the hill in a controlled manner. (In the final analysis,
solar energy can be viewed as a form of nuclear energy - fusion, this
time, rather than fission.)
Another aspect of solar energy: if you're the sort of person who is silly
enough to go outside and sunbake under an ozone-depleted sky, you'll get
your tan for nothing!
But of course, it's not really that simple, is it? The very process of
mining the coal, or pumping (and refining) the oil, is not free.
Expensive equipment is needed; royalties have to be paid for any
intellectual property involved; people have to be paid to do the work; and
of course - as is now painfully clear - there is a serious environmental
cost associated with the burning of fossil fuels. Similarly, building and
running a power station - even a hydro-electric one - is quite expensive;
and again, there is always at least some impact on the environment. Nuclear
fission power, although in use in some parts of the world, remains a
controversial issue, with continuing debate about safety and waste storage.
Solar energy - the direct use of the sun's radiation - looks like something
worth pursuing. New technologies look quite promising, and could at least
give us a breathing-space while even better methods are developed - but
again, it certainly won't be free (and, of course, it's
weather-dependent, so that it won't be practical in some parts of the
world).
As for lying in the sun, there is a significant risk of skin cancer - and if
that's not a cost, I don't know what is!
Okay - so what about radiant energy, or ZPE? Is it really free?
Not really, the way I see it. It's going to require the production of
appropriate technologies, which will probably be expensive initially,
at least - although, as we see repeatedly, the cost of any new technology
drops as it becomes accepted and widespread.
I'm hoping that it will become quite cheap over time. Of course,
there will be an on-going need for servicing and maintenance of the required
equipment; but as this process becomes streamlined over time, hopefully it
won't be a major expense.
The best part, as I see it, is that it will (hopefully!) have very little
impact on the environment - certainly less so than almost all of the
currently-existing technologies I've mentioned. If it can provide everyone
in the world with all the energy we'll ever need, cleanly, safely and at low
cost, while affording our poor, battered old world a real chance to regain
its equilibrium, what could be better?
I think that TANSTAAFL will always rule. I'm just hoping that the "Lunch"
will end up being cheap, if not "Free".
As you'll see, some of the researchers I admire - and on the basis of whose
work I'm conducting my own researches - do use the term "free energy"
without restriction or apology. I'm not in any way launching a personal
attack on them - far from it. It's just that I think the issue is worthy of
mention; and that I'll probably have to simply put up with being discomfited
by their use of the term - because the positive value of what they are doing
is far too important to allow semantics to become a major issue. As always,
it's ideas that are important, rather than mere words.
By way of closing this page, I'd like to tell you a story.
In 2007, ABC television ran a programme on a weekly basis (for most of the
year) entitled
"Difference of Opinion"
in which journalist Jeff McMullen compèred a discussion involving four or
five panellists and a studio audience. The topic for each programme was an
issue of the day. The twelfth programme, screened on Tuesday 30th April, was
entitled "Cool Heads In A Warm World", and dealt with climate change, which
was finally becoming a serious topic for discussion - even,
astonishingly, by the Howard Federal Government.
The shows were advertised on television a few weeks ahead, and viewers were
invited to register as members of the studio audience. As soon as I knew the
"Cool Heads..." show was coming up, I decided to do precisely that, and had
no trouble being accepted. At the time, I made a point of asking if I would
be able to make a contribution, and even refer to my website, live on
national television. (I also gave a bit of information about what I had in
mind - which, I now realize, was almost certainly a mistake.) I gained the
impression that I'd have just as good a chance to get a word in as anybody
else.
It was my intention, if at all possible, to "have my say" in the programme.
At various points, Mr. McMullen would ask for questions from the audience.
What I had in mind was not really a "question"; but I thought that if I was
quick enough I might have a chance to say something, within a few seconds,
about a possible technical solution, and thus perhaps make a worthwhile
contribution to the on-going debate.
The programmes were produced in Sydney. They were filmed early in the
evening and played to air later that same night. So with a bit of luck one
could attend the filming and be home in time to see oneself on the telly.
I flew up on Monday 29th and stayed with an old university friend who lived
and worked in the "big smoke". I spent some time, both before leaving
Launceston and during the time I had in Sydney before the show, trying to
prepare my little "speech" which I would deliver if the opportunity arose.
I can't remember the exact wording, but it was something along these lines:
“There is a way to generate sufficient energy for the developing world
which will not lead to either the emission of greenhouse gases or the risk
of nuclear accidents.”
Just that, basically. No mention of ZPE - unless I was asked to elaborate,
when I would try to give a basic idea of what it was about and refer viewers
to my madteddy.com website for further details.
The filming commenced, and I bided my time until what seemed like the right
moment. I put my hand up in the hope of being asked to speak - but to no
avail. In fact, I tried many times, even waving my arm around in the hope of
improving my chances - but still, no luck.
As the filming went on, I began to despair of having my say. Eventually, I
just took off the jumper, hoping I might at least send a glimpse of my
website's URL around the nation.
Later, back at my friend's home, we watched the show when it was broadcast.
The discussion centred more on environmental concerns and economic issues
like carbon trading and carbon taxes, than on possible technical "fixes".
There were a few short glimpses, as the camera panned over the studio
audience, of a rather sombre-faced Mad Teddy, but that was all - no T-shirt
visible, let alone a solitary messenger of hope delivering a sanguine word
in due season!
Was I naïve to "telegraph my punches" before the show? Had the compère been
warned about a wall-eyed weirdo with a wacky website and way-out ideas who
might disturb the even tenor of the proceedings?
I don't know. But I have my suspicions.
Still - all was not lost. With the stress of the TV show out of the way, I
spent a very pleasant couple of days with my old mate, having a fresh look
at Sydney (which, though a metropolis, does have real charm), and
buying a few books from some of the city's excellent bookshops. I reckon I
came out ahead, in the end!
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
But the story doesn't end there. Nearly three months later, on Thursday 19th
July, another episode of "Difference of Opinion", entitled "Nuclear or Not",
went to air. This was in the wake of the Howard government's championing of
a nuclear future for Australia; click
here
to see a précis of the programme's subject matter.
This time, I didn't register for the studio audience. (Once bitten...)
However, I did get involved in a way which produced a far more
satisfactory result, from the comfort of my own home.
With many ABC-TV programmes, once a show has gone to air, there is an
opportunity for the public to take part in an internet forum. This was true
for "Difference of Opinion". So I made a point of taking part in that,
posting a few comments and getting involved in a bit of a debate with other
interested viewers.
I'm delighted to report that - at the time of writing - those comments are
still there! If you click
here,
you'll see a list of contributers - and you'll find "Mad Teddy", who started
a thread headed "There is a better way". If you click on that, you can read
the little debate that ensued. (Alternatively, you can go straight to that
discussion page by clicking
here,
if you'd rather.)
“Where there's a will, there's a way”
My home page
Preliminaries (Copyright, Safety)
Mad Teddy's researches
into zero-point energy
History, terminology and motivation
>>>
Nikola Tesla's 153rd birthday
<<<
As I've mentioned elsewhere in this site, I've been interested in the
physical sciences since I was a kid. My burgeoning interest in electricity
in the early years of high-school was fuelled by my Dad; we worked together
on some early projects, and he helped me to get my young head around some of
the tricky concepts.
It's not my purpose here to address the mystical and/or religious aspects of
the book. The section that is of perhaps more immediate interest is the
first section, "Flights of Reason". In this, Deyo goes into considerable
detail about something he calls "Electro-Dynamic Propulsion". He has more to
say about it in the first six of the seven appendices.
(Click it to see the original)
)
I made a point of wearing my madteddy.com T-shirt under my jumper when I
went to the filming, with the intention of "flashing" the T-shirt at the
appropriate juncture, should it arise.
MORAL:
Return to my ZPE researches menu page